That is unrealistic and not sustainable without an ad model or being funded by a company doing over a billion dollars in revenue already.
Starting the timer and will stop it when they become non-free or switch to a paid model.
Starting the timer and will stop it when they become non-free or switch to a paid model.
It's actually more stable than ad-supported business models because small donor subscription revenue is consistent (like a SaaS business), unlike ad revenue which is much more volatile.
2. Bloomberg LP.
> That is unrealistic and not sustainable without an ad model or being funded by a company doing over a billion dollars in revenue already.
Are these not foundations owned by billionaires funding the AP? [0][1]
> The NY Times, WSJ, FT and many others are now funded by subscriptions.
That doesn't seem to be "at no cost" does it?
NY Times, WSJ, FT already are making billions of dollars sustaining themselves from that and are again owned and backed by billion dollar companies.
Why? Because it is NOT free "at no cost" and there is always someone else paying.
> Your claim from a few comments up doesn't seem to match reality:
The opposite is true. You have only further supported my claim.
[0] https://www.ap.org/about/supporting-ap/
[1] https://www.ap.org/media-center/press-releases/2025/ap-fund-...